The 1882 O/S Morgan Top 100 Vam or Refuted Over Mint Mark

The 1882 O/S Morgan Top 100 Vam or Refuted Over Mint Mark



As a variety collector I love finding a coin that stands out and is different. One such coin to me is the 1882 O/S Morgan Silver Dollar. It is among the top 100 vams in the Morgan series. Or is it? After reading up on this vam I have learned quite a bit. I will share some research with you all and then please post your thoughts on the findings as well as your specimens.

History : In the 1870’s through the early 1880’s the US mint was under pressure to mint silver dollars. The Morgan silver dollar first minted in 1878 when through many changes in design. To most these changes weren’t that drastic for the everyday man to notice. However changes were made to the dies thus we now vam specimens to determine the die marriages.

There were changes made to the dies that translated into the eagle having 7 or 8 tail feathers. Just as an example. But the mint was still be pushed into minting millions of these large coins.

How did the 1882 end up having an over mint mark? Due to a shortage of dies at the New Orleans mint dies were shipped from San Francisco to the Orleans mint. Now from finding what is believed to be the remints of the” S” under the “O’s” mint mark from New Orleans . It was said that the mint workers at New Orleans didn’t do much to remove the S mint mark from the San Fran dies. They began to strike coins and over punched the S with an O. {Some do refute this theory}

There are several die states found in the 1882 O/S Morgan variety. There are also some different die states. Thus there are Vams 3,4 and 5 and some say sub sets of all 3 vams 3A,4A,5A .Their rarity run between an R 3 to and R 5 with the rarest being the Vam #4 .

Now if I haven’t got you hooked yet this is where you’ll want to pay attention. Collecting these can pay off. So the collector must be aware of what to look for when walking a show and cherry picking the 1882 O Morgan. Make sure you study the 82 MM carefully know what you’re looking for. Every 82 O you look at make sure you give that” O” a real good look. Especially if the 1882 O you’re looking at is a MS coin. As this variety are most often found in lower grades XF-AU. MS 1882 O/S are rare and command higher premiums for the variety. One would be surprised the increase in value between a high AU to a MS coin. In fact there’s not many found in MS-64. Here are some current Values on XF to MS coins .

In xf it’s a $60 find, go up a notch to AU 50 and you’re looking at a $100 coin. AU 58 you’re looking at $110.,but at MS60 you’re now in the $200 range. It then takes a $200 hop to MS 62 making it a $400. At MS 63 another nice hop to $600, and at MS-64 $1750!

The interest level is pretty moderate on this variety, and with a mintage of the 1882 O Morgan at 6,090,000 that includes the variety. Cherry picking these should be a fun task.

Now I must say this as there are some who refute the OMM . Some are saying the O/S is not really a OMM but a die crack. As none of the serifs of the S show outside of the O mint mark.
Here’s your chance to discuss the above ,give your options, and post your 1882 O/S or ask questions about any 1882 O’s you may have and are uncertain if your coin is in fact a 1882 O/S variety.

I personally have two that I will post ,one a Vam 3 and the other a vam 5. Let’s see your treasures.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mine is a VAM-5. I picked this one up about 12 years ago, before I even knew what a VAM was.

 

Nice write up Paddy!!!
I have only cherry picked 1 '82 o/s (recessed version), in my brief coin collecting existence ,it was in XF condition, thus I doubled my $ from $25 to $50.....I considered this a landmark event, and one day I hope to find an MS one, which I will undoubtedly keep!
Sorry, no photos

After holding a specimen in-hand, I can say with 100% certainty that, this was an S MM , underneath of an O MM . Plain as day!!

 

My response is... @messydesk

 

There is really only one person that "refutes" the O/S mint mark. He also misuses the word "refute" when what he really means is "dispute."

I recently cherrypicked a VAM 3 that graded XF45. Not a huge score by any stretch, but I'll take it. The scarcest of the O/S set is the EDS VAM 4, typically found PL. All of the EDS coins are scarcer than the normal ones.

 

One minor problem with the "O/S" theory - not that I disbelieve it - is that the center stroke of an actual "S" punch is a ton thicker (and more horizontal in orientation) than it shows up on any of the three varieties. Maybe @messydesk can better address the idea of whether there exist thinner-stroke S punches in the 1881-1882 timeframe; I don't know off the top of my head.

When overlaid (I picked a typical 1882-S for the overlay), it's clear that only the very tips of the serifs will reach outside the bounds of the O. Here's one sample Heritage coin (others are to be found) which certainly seems to show them (or remnants of them), in the correct location according to my overlay:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dol...3-5202.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

 

Dave what's it grade?

 

ACG had it at MS61.

 

The two I have one is raw the vam 3 the vam 5 is an Au 58 by Anacs

 

There is only one S punch size observed on dollars was the same from 1881-1898. 1880 has some with a larger S, and in 1899 they started using a wider S. Leroy Van Allen has done some studies, including image overlays that do show faint remnants of serifs on the outside edge of the O for at least one of the varieties.

The thickness of the center stroke of a proper S mint mark can't be easily compared to that of a repaired, then overpunched one, other than to say that the overpunched one should be no thicker than a proper one. Three things would affect the shape and size of the diagonal of the S. First, before the O was punched, there was some attempt at repairing the die to minimize the S. Second, punching the O on top of the S (and repair) would affect surrounding metal, especially inside the O. Finally, the dies were polished before being placed in service.

 

Thank you. There's no other explanation which makes more sense than for these to be OMM's - if they're convenient "die cracks," why three similar in one year and no others in the entire series? I've just always wondered about the thinness of the stroke.

 

Is there mint documents about the transfer of dies from SF to NO?

 

Not that I know of, but there doesn't have to be. Mint marks were applied in Philadelphia, so this could have simply been repurposing an S-mint die.

The die usage logs from 1881 showing many dies having produced a huge number of coins in San Francisco could be a hint that they got a lot more mileage out of their dies than expected in 1882. If not as many dies were needed as had been expected, then they could be sent to NO, instead. Could have nothing to do with it, too, for all I know at this point.

 

I've been on board with the theory that these dies were re-purposed because they were not needed by the San Francisco mint. I'll bet they had a person or persons employed who really knew how to dial in the planchet feeding systems therefore avoiding die clash events that would have shortened the life of the dies. Looking at the early S mint Morgans from a VAM standpoint there are not very many clashed die listings. I believe this would be the same scenario for the 1880 over date dies. They just were not needed in 1879, but I'll bet they produced an abundance because of what they went through in the first year or so. Cool stuff to think about for sure.

 

See this is what I hoped to spark by posting this thread.
Not that anyone has absolute proof ,but based on what we do know to make an educated call. I'm sure in numismatics there are plenty of hidden secrets . Some are explainable others are not.
What truly amazes me is that during the late 1700's -1800's for not having the tools and knowledge of the twenty first century they sure did amazing work.
Especially in design..... but again they didn't have the science we do today they did have great artists and a better media to work in. That has withstood the test of time. I often wonder if coins from the mid 1960's what will they look like in 100 to 200 years?

 

@messydesk Please tell us the name of the numismatist who says these coins are not over mintmarks. I'm sure he/she would not mind defending that opinion.

Now I should be very pleased if we can discuss this next:

I know of at least two professional numismatic researchers - one at NGC and myself who believe that the long accepted information about the Die States (early or late) of these coins in the Top 100 book and the VAM website is incorrect. What we are asked to believe in these two sources is that the "rare", Early Die State coins with the flimsy, partial outline of raised metal remaining inside the "O" eventually evolved to become AN OBVIOUSLY BONE STRAIGHT, FRESH, SHARP, DIAGNOGAL FROM THE "S" AS THE DIE IS USED. That is crazy and IMHO, it is one of the most stupid conclusions in all of numismatics!

Hopefully, a VAM collector here can post photographic proof that my opinion is misguided by using die breaks or other diagnostics to ID that the same die was used for the EDS and LDS coins. I have been working on this for a while but do not have access to as many examples as I need.

PS I have NEVER seen any evidence of "repair" or "pre-working" to the mint mark area on any Mint State O/S dollar! I have microscopically examined quite a few (before I became interested in a EDS/LDS research project). Perhaps someone may wish to post a photo of the repair.

 

I will get photographic proof tonight when I have time, since I have EDS and LDS VAM 3 coins available. Of the 20,000 or so pictures I have on my computer of VAMs, I probably have comparisons for VAMs 4 and 5 as well. Since you think this is such a stupid conclusion, you must have far superior proof to support your incorrect conjecture, which I am looking forward to seeing.

The way the EDS coins can become what we see on the LDS coins -- the full diagonal of the S, which is flush with the surface on the VAM 3 -- is the same way we see die chips appear where there previously was none, or how die pitting appears where there was none. Something fell out of the die at the site of the repair (by which I mean changing the mint mark as well as whatever else was done to hide the S). To the contrary, I have never seen a die "fill itself in" and have a chip or break just disappear or become weaker with time.

Ideally, you will never see evidence of a repair, which would mean the repair was done correctly and held. Look at all the 1880 overdates that show only as a checkmark from the 7 on the surface of the 8, yet have clean fields around the rest of the date. These were repairs that worked well enough that there's nothing to see.

 

cool thread and very interesting...following with joy